A Garden of One’s Own Read online

  The case of Zhou Zuoren will be discussed below.

  This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:23:15 UTC

  All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

  Introduction 5

  Part of the confusion over nomenclature no doubt came as a result

  WN NWZMQOVQVÆ]MVKM[)KKWZLQVOWPMXZM^ITMV^QM_[WN PMQUMPMZM

  were many forms in foreign literature similar to that of the modern

  Chinese essay, and critics were fond of weighing the relative importance

  of foreign and indigenous elements in the works of contemporary

  essayists. From the West, they discerned a tradition of essay writing that

  started with Montaigne, was popularized by Francis Bacon, and came

  to develop and prosper in the hands of English and American essayists

  of subsequent generations. Charles Lamb, William Hazlitt, Washington

  Irving, G. K. Chesterton and Ralph Waldo Emerson are just a few of

  those mentioned in this connection. From Japan, the genealogy was

  not as clear-cut, although it was generally recognized that the works

  of Lafcadio Hearn (who went by the Japanese name Koizumi Yakumo

  in his most productive years), Matsuo BashĿ, Kobayashi Issa, Abe Jiro,

  SaitĿ Mokichi, and a few others belonged to this literary family that

  had yet to come up with a name acceptable to all. If indeed all of these

  literary dignitaries had a shaping hand in the formation of modern

  Chinese essays, then perhaps one could borrow a foreign term to

  label them. But which term? Which of the foreign literary forms most

  approximated what modern Chinese essayists were producing? Was it

  the British familiar essay, the French essais and prose poem, the Japanese zuihitsu ¹[SMKPM[º WN PM SQVL QVZWL]KML Ja 4INKILQW 0MIZV WZ PM

  Japanese manga, which, as a form of drawing, was somehow believed to

  share the spirit of the essay as well?5

  While all of these foreign terms have been proposed as names for

  the modern Chinese essay, serious contenders for the title remain few in

  number, namely, meiwen, chun sanwen, xuyu sanwen, and, of course, xiaopin wen, all of which I will examine below.

  5

 
  Yutang (1934a) further outlined two lines of development in English essays, with one beginning with Chaucer, which was characterized by a casual and intimate

  style, and the other with Bacon, which was known for its weighty and reasoned

  style.

  2IXIVM[M QVÆ]MVKM[ PW_M^MZ IZM ZMKWOVQbML J] PI^M [W NIZ VW ZMKMQ^ML

  any in-depth examination, even though Kuriyagawa Hakuson is quoted in a

  large number of studies on modern xiaopin wen. The 1935 collection, Xiaopin wen yu manhua NWZ MÌUXTM KWVIQV[ WVTa []XMZÅKQIT LQ[K][[QWV WN PM manga tradition in Japan.

  This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:23:15 UTC

  All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

  6

  A Garden of One’s Own

  Zhou Zuoren, who discerned two kinds of essays in Western

  literature, proposed the term meiwen QV !
  and academic in nature, while the second, narrative and descriptive, was

  PMVKM IZQ[QK 0M KITTML PM [MKWVL SQVL ¹ meiwenº IM[PMQK _ZQQVO

  describing it as a bridge between poetry and prose. Since the term was

  ostensibly derived from the Western literary tradition, it is only to be

  expected that, by this account, meiwen writers abounded in the West,

  and included some of the best-known familiar essayists mentioned

  above. Zhou Zuoren, however, went on to point out that meiwen could

  be found in classical Chinese literature as well. Traditional forms such

  as xu (prefaces), ji (chronicles), and shuo (argumentative essays) were early instances of meiwen. It was only in the modern period, Zhou maintained, that one looked in vain for similar literary creations. This view helps to

  M`XTIQV BPW]¼[ IXXIZMV VMML W LZI_ I\MVQWV W PM ÆW]ZQ[PQVO [IM

  that this form of writing was enjoying in the West at the time.

  ;QUQTIZTa ?IVO
  -VOTQ[PI[¹X]ZMXZW[Mº_I[IVQUXWZIQWVNZWUPM?M[4QSMBPW]

  Wang believed there to be a paucity of artistic essays in the Chinese

  literature of their time, which he attributed to four factors: 1) the

  lack of precision which characterized Chinese thinking; 2) linguistic

  IVL ZPMWZQKIT QVÆM`QJQTQa WV PM XIZ WN UW[ +PQVM[M _ZQMZ[# IV

  overemphasis on rational knowledge, without giving due attention to

  literary sensibilities in their writings; and 4) the failure of supporters

  WN UWLMZV +PQVM[M TQMZI]ZM W XZWUWM ¹ chun sanwen. º 4MI^QVO I[QLM

  the possible contradictions among the four factors (especially between

  PMÅZ[IVLPQZLQ[PW]TLJMKTMIZPI?IVO_I[I\MUXQVOPMZMW

  describe a kind of essay that placed equal emphasis on the impartation

  of knowledge and the cultivation of pleasurable reading—a twentieth-

  century reformulation of the age-old charge for literature to instruct and

  delight.

 
  Wang— mei (beautiful) and chun (pure)—suggest that both writers sought to highlight the belle-lettristic quality of modern Chinese essays. However,

  without further elaboration, the terms merely beg the question of what

  KWV[Q]M[ ¹JMI]aº WV PM WVM PIVL IVL ¹X]ZQaº WV PM WPMZ IVL

  neither Zhou nor Wang ended up convincing their colleagues of the

  appropriateness of their terms. When Zhou later produced a prodigious

  body of theoretical writing on the modern Chinese essay, he too would

  give up the term meiwen, and adopt the term xiaopin wen in its stead.

  This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:23:15 UTC

  All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

  Introduction 7

  If both Zhou Zuoren and Wang Tongzhao were insufficiently

  specific about the characteristics of their own terms, they had

  nevertheless succeeded in articulating the ideal for the kind of essay

  they were advocating. Pedantry, rationality, and argument were to be

  I^WQLML_PMZMI[ÆM`QJTMTIVO]IOMXZMKQ[MPQVSQVOIVLIXZWKTQ^QaNWZ

  description and narration were to be encouraged. They had also taken

  PMÅZ[[MXW_IZLLMTQVMIQVOIZILQQWVNWZPMM[[IaBPW]XZM[MVML

  both British and American writers as well as traditional Chinese forms as

  models, while Wang Tongzhao made special mention of William James

  and Herbert Spencer, who, in his view, were known for integrating their

  argumentative writings with aesthetically pleasing language. Admittedly,

  at this point both Zhou’s and Wang’s conceptions of the essay tradition

  were still sketchy and sometimes even self-contradictory.

  ?QP PM X]JTQKIQWV WN 0] 5MVOP]I¼[ IVL ?] ;P]bPMV¼[ ¹@]a]

  [IV_MVº QV ! PW_M^MZ LQ[K][[QWV WN PM M[[Ia PIL ZMIKPML []KP I

  stage that it was no longer enough for critics to throw out a name for

  consideration without at the same time elaborating on the aesthetic

  and cultural implications of the term. In this regard, Hu Menghua

  and Wu Shuzhen managed to touch on areas not discussed by either

  Zhou Zuoren or Wang Tongzhao. Hu and Wu began their analysis by

  poi
nting out that the name that they had come up with, xuyu sanwen,

  _I[ I ZIV[TIQWV WN PM -VOTQ[P MZU ¹NIUQTQIZ M[[Iaº IVL xuyu, like its English counterpart, described an attitude or a tone. If, on occasion,

  xuyu sanwen wandered into areas of analysis and argumentation, it did so QVILMIKPMLQUXZM[[QWVQ[QKIVL¹NIUQTQIZº_Ia"

  How does a xuyu sanwen writer report and comment on a subject of topical reference? Here is an example: Let’s say that you come across something

  in the newspaper or that you come home with news that you’ve heard

  somewhere outside. You sit down at the table and tell it in your soft-spoken

  voice to your kind mother, your loving wife, or your good friend. Let me

  be even more explicit—[a xuyu sanwen is] just like the kind of idle chat you engage in after a cup of tea or wine.

  Hu and Wu (1928, 15)

  Later in the same article, they continue:

  If you are so good as to go to a teahouse, a bathhouse, or the park to listen

  to the words of the idle, romantic scholars there and set down their words

  with your pen, you will end up with a wonderful piece of xuyu sanwen.

  Hu and Wu (1928, 15)

  This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:23:15 UTC

  All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

  8

  A Garden of One’s Own

  Later in their article, Hu and Wu tackled another aspect of xuyu sanwen, namely its personal quality. Every word in a xuyu sanwen had to come

  from the subjectivity of the writer, they maintained, and it was this

  very quality that kept a piece of xuyu sanwen LQ[QVK NZWU ¹PM SQVL WN

  QUXMZ[WVITWJRMKQ^M_ZQQVO[PIKZQQKQbMIZO]MVIZZIMWZLM[KZQJMº

  While I will return to the familiar qualities of modern Chinese

  essays at greater length later in this study, it should be pointed out here

  that the term xuyu sanwen is preferable to either meiwen or chun sanwen not only because it avoids the pitfalls of impressionistic descriptions such

  I[ ¹JMI]QN]Tº IVL ¹X]ZMº J] IT[W JMKI][M Q LQZMK[ PM NWK][ WN PM

  discussion from language to the relationship between the writer and the

  reader on the one hand, and the writer and the world around him on

  the other. Indeed, when Hu Shi praised Zhou Zuoren for disproving

  PM UaP PI ¹IM[PMQK _ZQQVO KIVVW JM LWVM QV PM ^MZVIK]TIZ

  TIVO]IOMº PM UMZMTa KPITSML Q ]X I[ IVWPMZ ^QKWZa NWZ PM

  vernacular language movement, and said nothing concrete by way of

  explaining the special appeal of this type of essay . Similarly, Wang Bin argues that meiwen I[IMZUKIUMQVWJMQVOJMKI][M¹Q[MZ^MLIVMMLº

  (1988, 2): that is, the need to elevate the position of vernacular language

  relative to that of classical language. In other words, with Zhou Zuoren’s

  essays as well as his concept of meiwen in their arsenal, advocates of the vernacular language could now claim that whatever traditional literature

  could do with the classical language, modern literature could with the

  vernacular.6

  In their enthusiasm over this little victory, they overlooked the more

  radical aspect of the modern Chinese essay, namely, that it represented

  an entirely different way of approaching literature and the world.

  As it happened, however, the term xuyu sanwen did not stick, either,

  although it continues to be used every now and then to this day. Meiwen

  and chun sanwen, on the other hand, have simply vanished from any

  serious discussion of Chinese essays. The term that gradually won

  common acceptance and has the widest currency today is xiaopin wen.

  In the same sentence quoted earlier in which he acknowledged the

  contributions of Zhou Zuoren’s term meiwen, Hu Shi replaced it with

  6

  It is questionable, of course, whether literary language ( wenyan) and the vernacular (baihua) ever exist independently of each other in practice. Even the most ardent supporters of the vernacular movement cannot but write in a

  combination of the two.

  This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:23:15 UTC

  All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

  Introduction 9

  ¹ xiaopin sanwenº .Q^M aMIZ[ TIMZ BP] BQYQVO QV IVWPMZ []UUIQWV WN

  the accomplishments of the modern essay (1928), followed the same

  practice. He cited the works of other scholars before him, repeating

  whatever term a particular scholar might have used, but when he came

  to his own analysis, the two terms that he used most often were xiaopin

  sanwen and sanwen. Thus the term xiaopin wen had come gradually and surreptitiously to replace other terms. When Lin Yutang launched

  his three journals specializing in the publication of essays from 1932

  to 1934, he further reinforced the usage of this term in many of his

  editorial statements. From that point on, his name and his journals have

  been regarded as something of an emblem of xiaopin wen. Other critics, too, seemed relieved to see that discussion of names had ended,7 as they

  could now turn to serious argument over the content of the essays. But

  of this, more later.

  Unlike the other terms discussed so far, xiaopin wen has historical

  roots. Zhong Jingwen (1927, 30), quoting Shishi bian kong jing ( Buddhist Interpretation of Emptiness), pointed out that the term dates back to the Six Dynasties. Xiaopin, in this original sense, referred to truncated ( lue) versions of Buddhist scriptures, as distinct from dapin_PQKP[QOVQÅMLPM

  full ( xiang) versions.8 Zhong, however, believed that the original meaning 7

  See Yu Dafu (1935, 258) where he complained about how critics seemed to

  play fast and loose with terms, especially imported terms. He pointed out

  PI NWZ MÌUXTM [WUM KZQQK[ UIQVIQVML PI ¹ xiaopin wenº and other terms _MZMZIV[TIMLNZWUPM-VOTQ[P_WZL¹M[[Iaº_PQKPQV]ZV_I[IZIV[TIQWV

  WN PM .ZMVKP _WZL ¹ essaisº ;]KP I XZWKM[[ WN ZIV[TIQWV IVL ZMZIV[TIQWV

  led some to consider Chinese writing modeled upon English essays also as

  xiaopin wen. It was one thing to assert that modern xiaopin wen _I[ QVÆ]MVKML

  Ja PM ?M[MZV M[[Ia J] Y]QM IVWPMZ W ZMI PM _W I[ PM [IUM" ¹?Pa

  should things in China be exactly the same as those in the West? And how

  can the unique spirit and culture of the West be completely transported to

  +PQVI'º
  late 1920s.

  8

  Since then, scholars have come up with other early instances of the term xiaopin.

  See Cao Shujuan for the fullest survey of the use of the term (1988, 17–86).

  Cao also points out that glossing the term xiaopin as a truncated version is not necessarily correct, as that implies that the fuller version precedes the truncated version in time. The fact, however, is that sometimes it is the other way round, with the dapin appearing later than the xiaopin. Rather than an abbreviation of dapin, therefore, it is more correct to say that xiaopin is simply different from

  This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:23:15 UTC

  All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

  10

  A Garden of One’s Own

  of the term xiaopin was not relevant to an understanding of modern

  xiaopin wen. When late Ming essayists called their essay collections xiaopin wen, he argued, they had already departed from the usage of the Six

  ,aVI[QM[
  the brevity and casualness of their works. The implied opposite of

&
nbsp; xiaopin in the Ming, as well as in modern times, is no longer dapin, but something more akin to analytical and academic writing, so full of high-minded posturing, as Zhou Zuoren pointed out.

  The comparisons of late Ming essays with modern ones, however,

  had been going on for some time even before Zhong’s article

  IXXMIZML 7V PM UW[ []XMZÅKQIT TM^MT UWLMZV M[[IaQ[[ _MZM [IQL

  to exemplify the style of their Ming predecessors. Accordingly, then,

  Yu Pingbo and Fei Ming were said to resemble writers of the Jingling

  School, while Hu Shi, Bing Xin, and Xu Zhimo were likened to those

  of the Gongan School (Zhou Zuoren 1932, 52).9 Most of the time,

  however, comparisons went beyond impressionistic remarks as critics

  began to consider the similarities of the two periods. Of this group,

  Zhou Zuoren was most consistent in his efforts, and his theory of the

  origins of modern Chinese literature, which will be discussed in the

  VM`[MKQWVKIUMI[IZM[]TWN PQ[TQVMWN QV^M[QOIQWV;]NÅKMW[Ia

  at this point that, with the wide adoption of the term xiaopin, discussion of the modern Chinese essay veered away from consideration of foreign

  QVÆ]MVKM[NWK][QVOQV[MILWVPMKWVQV]IQWVWN IVWTLZILQQWVQVI

  modern guise.

  Before we leave the topic of names, it should be noted that a

  dapin. These distinctions will all have implications for our discussion in the

  [MKQWV¹
  9

  It is relevant at this point to refer to an anecdote told by Shi Wei (1941, 47): Yu Pingbo once submitted an essay of his to Zhou Zuoren, Qian Xuantong, and

  Gu Jiegang without letting on that he was the author. The three were impressed

  with the essay but were not at all certain about the date of the composition.

 
  not possibly have been written in their own times. At long last, they concluded that it was a product of the early Qing, if not as far back as the late Ming.

  I have not been able to verify from other independent sources the truth of

  this anecdote. My suspicion is that, given its perfect mix of suspense and surprise, the anecdote is most likely apocryphal. Be that as it may, it serves to illustrate very well how deeply facile comparisons between late Ming and modern